create

Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?

Annotations only declare write, non-idempotent, non-destructive; the description adds substantial behavioral context beyond them: existing objects shift so addresses must be re-read, color is snapped to a palette and reported back, audio clips are auto-warped and report length, and the whole operation is one undo step. This is exactly the extra context annotations cannot supply.

Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.

Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?

Front-loaded with purpose and densely informative, with no filler sentences; each clause earns its place by clarifying a kind-specific rule. It is a single unbroken block rather than bulleted per-kind, which slightly hurts scannability for a nine-variant enum, but the content is not bloated.

Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.

Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?

For a nine-kind creation tool with no output schema, the description covers required parameter combinations, defaults, address formats, side effects, and even what the result reports back (length, applied color). Nothing an agent needs to invoke it correctly is missing.

Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.

Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?

Schema coverage is 100% and schema descriptions are terse ('What to create'), so baseline is 3. The description adds real semantics: which parameters are relevant per kind, the -1/omit append convention for index, the 'tracks/2/slots/0' address format for empty slots, and time-in-beats meaning. This exceeds what the schema conveys.

Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.

Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?

States a specific verb (Create) and enumerates the exact resources it can produce (track, return track, scene, MIDI/audio clip, arrangement clip, take lane). Distinguishes itself from siblings like duplicate and load_item by scope and by returning the new object's address. An agent can tell what it does without opening the schema.

Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.

Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?

Gives per-kind usage rules (which parameters apply to which kind, defaults like length=4 or index=-1 to append) and a negative exclusion ('Cue points cannot be created'). However, it never routes the agent to alternatives such as duplicate or load_item, so it stops short of explicit when-to-use-this-vs-sibling guidance.

Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.